On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:48 PM, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > Richard Fontana scripsit: > >> The OSI should have some sort of process for delisting >> formerly-approved licenses for reasons of failing to actually meet the >> Open Source Definition (or some future replacement of it). That is to >> say, the OSI should be willing to admit that it made a mistake, much >> as a court (while it might ordinarily apply the policy of stare >> decisis) will in certain cases overrule its prior decisions. Clearly >> for policy reasons such actions should be exceptional rather than >> common, and perhaps should be limited to certain licenses that were >> approved during a particular period in the OSI's existence (I would >> guess 2000-2005?). > > Fine in principle, but do you actually have examples of such licenses that > contravene the OSD? (About future revisions, of course, nothing can be said.)
At the time it was approved, there was debate about whether section 14 of http://www.opensource.org/licenses/CPAL-1.0 contradicted section 10 of the OSD. The approved draft is much better than the original, however that section is still debatable. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss